That goes too far -- way too far. I heard much the same about dissent with George W. Bush many times, and on some other Forums after I criticized the Great and Infallible Leader I occasionally saw suggestions that I find another country -- typically Iran, Cuba, or North Korea.

Dissent with the President is not treachery. Insistence that dissent with the President is disloyalty to the Nation is in fact a repudiation of the principles upon which our Constitutional republic was founded.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States defines treason and limits it so that treason applies only to the most blatant acts of disloyalty to the United States, such as waging war against the United States, collaborating with wartime enemies, or conspiring to overthrow the government of the United States on behalf of a foreign power.

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias...

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias...

Heck, Montana would be interesting because it was a swing state.

It might be hard to see, but we get to add Rhode Island:

... and now Michigan, until now the most populous state for which an approval rating wasn't yet posted. Georgia might be equal in electoral votes in 2012, though, as people who have a chance to leave "Michigrim" get to do so.

The Quinnipiac polls put Florida in the 65-75 range, so I make a revision. (I am not making an upgrade for a DailyKos rating for Washington state because DailyKos has an overwhelming left-wing slant).

It looks as the GOP has its work cut out for itself if it is to achieve anything in the 2012 election. Note that Obama barely won Florida, and his approval rating in Florida approaches 70%.

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias...

Heck, Montana would be interesting because it was a swing state.Approval ratings just came in for Georgia, a swing state into which Obama put much effort until September (when the GOP gave a scare):

... and now Georgia, until now the most populous state for which an approval rating wasn't yet posted. Georgia might be equal in electoral votes to Michigan in 2012, though, as people who have a chance to leave "Michigrim" get to do so.

It looks as the GOP has its work cut out for itself if it is to achieve anything in the 2012 election. Note that Obama barely won Florida, and his approval rating in Florida approaches 70%. Right now it seems that any Republican who had to challenge Obama today for the Presidency would be the new Alf Landon... with apologies to Landon in case the personalities aren't the same.

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings. It's called a honeymoon you morons. And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down. There is nothing to celebrate here. Call me back at the end of the year.

Cut the allegations of stupidity.

Sure, it might be a honeymoon. Note well that when the approval rating is above the percentage that voted for him, that something has gone right. The approval rating is above the voting percentage.

What could that mean?

1. That Obama has shown clearly what his administration will be like for until the next Presidential election.

Unlikely. Things can change rapidly. Nobody ever expected George W. Bush to preside over the most extensive interventions in the economy even as late as August 2008.

2. That he has made no severe and irreversible blunders.

That depends upon one's ideology.

3. That he has kept campaigning after winning the election.

That would be pathological if such were true.

4. He was a stronger candidate than the votes suggested in November.

That says more about John McCain than about Barack Obama. Considering how dreadful Dubya was, McCain could hardly have been anything less than an improvement. Would McCain have similar approval ratings had he won? Maybe.

5. It's the normal respect for the winner if not an incumbent.

He will need to sacrifice some political capital to achieve what he wants to achieve, and both the economy and extant wars stand to bite back.

We now discover how much hidden damage happened under our 43rd President. The banking failures demonstrate the folly of Dubya's demagoguery of "every family owning a home" despite low incomes. The job losses demonstrate the tendency of entities once known as manufacturers becoming importers instead.

In late February 2001 Americans continued to bask in the Indian Summer of the aftermath of the Clinton era in which government was still small (give appropriate credit to the Republican-majority Congress that kept Clinton from enacting the big programs of his dreams, of course); eight years later we reel from massive corruption and incompetence in Big Business. Government takes over failing entities -- something unnecessary except for failures. Hank Paulson and George W. Bush were firm believers in free enterprise and had no proclivities toward socialism. Reality had a socialist bias in the autumn of 2008.

Dubya was much less a reformer than a socialist; reform would have made the government takeovers of business unnecessary.

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias...

Heck, Montana would be interesting because it was a swing state.Approval ratings just came in for Georgia, a swing state into which Obama put much effort until September (when the GOP gave a scare):

... and we get new numbers, if no 'new' states polled Declines, largely, but not huge ones or where one wouldn't expect them.

It looks as the GOP has its work cut out for itself if it is to achieve anything in the 2012 election. Note that Obama barely won Florida, and his approval rating in Florida approaches 70%. Right now it seems that any Republican who had to challenge Obama today for the Presidency would be the new Alf Landon... with apologies to Landon in case the personalities aren't the same.

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias...

Heck, Montana would be interesting because it was a swing state.Approval ratings just came in for Georgia, a swing state into which Obama put much effort until September (when the GOP gave a scare):

... and we get new numbers, if no 'new' states polled Declines, largely, but not huge ones or where one wouldn't expect them.

It looks as the GOP has its work cut out for itself if it is to achieve anything in the 2012 election. Note that Obama barely won Florida, and his approval rating in Florida approaches 70%. Right now it seems that any Republican who had to challenge Obama today for the Presidency would be the new Alf Landon... with apologies to Landon in case the personalities aren't the same.

Mercifully for the GOP, the election still isn't being held today.

Adjustments made. Yellow indicates approval under 50%.

... If Obama is above 50% in Tennessee, then that suggests that the GOP has its work cut out.

The last Democratic Presidential nominee to win Texas was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Bill Clinton's ideology was much like that of Jimmy Carter and was even from a neighboring State and did not win. (All right, the Arkansas/Texas border is short by Texas standards... but Hope, Arkansas is very close to the Texas/Arkansas state line.

Should Obama win Texas, he wins it in at least an Eisenhower-scale landslide.

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias...

Heck, Montana would be interesting because it was a swing state.Approval ratings just came in for Georgia, a swing state into which Obama put much effort until September (when the GOP gave a scare):

... and we get new numbers, if no 'new' states polled Declines, largely, but not huge ones or where one wouldn't expect them.

It looks as the GOP has its work cut out for itself if it is to achieve anything in the 2012 election. Note that Obama barely won Florida, and his approval rating in Florida approaches 70%. Right now it seems that any Republican who had to challenge Obama today for the Presidency would be the new Alf Landon... with apologies to Landon in case the personalities aren't the same.

Mercifully for the GOP, the election still isn't being held today.

Adjustments made. Yellow indicates approval under 50%.

... If Obama is above 50% in Tennessee, then that suggests that the GOP has its work cut out.

Let's remember that the superb German intelligence services stated clearly that Saddam Hussein had no WMD programs and had no connection to international terrorism before Dubya invaded Iraq. Also, George W. Bush put his hands on Chancellor Angela Merkel once, behavior best described as repugnant.

I figure that Dubya was (and remains) extremely unpopular in Germany -- and Obama has a huge reservoir of good will.

Obama is now less popular than Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41, and Bush 43 at this point in their Presidencies.

No statistical significance. One can say nothing, so one might as well remain quiet.

What are you talking about, 'no statistical significance'? It's inherently statistically significant because it's a statistic!

I could shut up about the whole thing. But then, why have the thread at all?

I look at the curve, look at the wild scatter of data points, I look at the regression line and I find the regression line over roughly 50 days more precise than the data suggest. In effect I see no cause to believe that Obama has been gaining or losing popularity (which I think is your point), although I see significant difference in popularity at a similar time between Obama and either Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy.

No, I don't have the tools for an analysis of regression at my disposal now because I don't have the raw data and I don't have the computer program available for it. But I have seen plenty of random scatters, and very few of them give an exactly flat line of regression.

There is no reason to believe that the support for Obama is anything other than flat. Over time there will be more data and there will be less randomness. There is plenty of time between now and November 2012 for events and deeds to shape the regression "line".

Well, I guess the White House is concerned enough about the trend that they are shifting into campaign mode. Fund raising, appearances on Leno, stops in battleground states, etc.

Just like Clinton, this will be a never-ending campaign with the objective to keep the approval ratings as high as possible. And the dumb ass Republicans are afraid to take him on directly, allowing him to run circles around him. They deserve to lose then. I'm at the point that I'll support the first Republican who has the stones to go after him. That's why Sanford is looking good at the moment.

In fact the GOP largely took Obama on directly, voting against his stimulus and threatening to filibuster against it. That is standing up to Obama, even if it should prove folly a few months hence.

Dubya didn't do that? Sure. he knew enough to stay clear of places that would never vote for him. That demonstrates an awareness of his weaknesses as a campaigner.

We shall see soon enough whether standing up to Obama is political suicide or wisdom -- fewer than twenty months from now. I will be right or you will be wrong. Don't be surprised if there should be a defection or two from the GOP.

Rasmussen's LV screen caused it to get the election wrong in some states, typically by undercounting the likely Democratic vote. The 18-22 vote in 2008 was strongly Democratic, and it was unusually high for youth vote. If one was under 22 on November 4, 2008, then Rasmussen's LV screen (that is, those people who had voted in a the last Presidential election) ignored one. It even rejected people actively campaigning for their respective parties, and if any people vote, it is they, so long as they are of voting age.

It's a reasonable screen in most elections, but not this time. It is made to prevent bias and reject the spin of the Democrats... but this time it is an over-response to such a concern, and that can at times be as hazardous as outright bias.

Should voters born between 1991 and 1994 act much like those born between 1987 and 1990 in the next election, then the GOP stands to be in deep trouble.